- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi BD
Quote (bodhitharta @ June 27 2009,22:27)
The whole trinitarian argument is one of special pleading. Paul was called a god by some, so is Paul a God? He didn't prevent nor explain to them that he was not a god.Seriously, do you think Paul considered himself a god? Did Paul take credit for being a god? If he would have this is what would have happened to him…
And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man. And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost. Acts 12:22, 23
Surely you can do better than this? Why don’t you give us an example where an Apostle or follower of Jesus called another being their God besides the Father and Jesus? I Didn’t think so!
Quote (bodhitharta @ June 27 2009,22:27)
The Quran has to have something to do with the canon of the Bible because it explains the Bible and it is the word of Your God and My God but you are unaware.Where is the scriptural evidence in the Bible showing the “quran” would explain the Bible?
No it is not the word of my God because my God is not “Allah” and my prophet or Saviour is not Mohammad.
WJ
Quote (thethinker @ June 28 2009,11:57) bodhitharta said to WJ: Quote You are really humorous you keep approaching Paladin as if you are an expert on greek, Hebrew, grammar…etc.
bd,
I marvel that you could accuse WJ of presenting himself as a scholar of the biblical languages when it is clearly Paladin that's the showman. WJ is just meeting Paladin on his own turf. Paladin lacks the ability to present a case without being very technical and lengthy about it.bd said:
Quote I truly hope(God Willing) that Paladin stops lettin you and thinker throw him/her out of synch with the frivolity that is abundant in the both of your presentations. Paladin throws himself out of sync. See how he handles Isaiah's vision of Christ's glory. It is altogether convoluded. Paladin tried to make you think that Isaiah 6 cannot be about Christ because chapter 53 speaks only of His humiliation. Paladin does not allow a passage to speak on its own.
bd said:
Quote Thinker at least seems to be more authentic and original but you actually pretend scholarship and it is all false. If you can't see that Paladin passes himself off as a scholar when he is not then you need glasses. Paladin is not a scholar. He is a DISSENTER!
bd said:
Quote I believe you want to be a scholar but you should instead want to be a sincere believer. And Paladin is a sincere believer? Paladin denies that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. That makes him an antichrist. And what about you? You cannot be a sincere believer if you confess salvation by any other name than Christ.
Other anti-trinitarians on this board are truly Christian because they believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But you and Paladin have no place with God's people. You and Paladin just want to overthrow the faith of Christ's sheep.
thinker
(thinker)Quote Paladin lacks the ability to present a case without being very technical and lengthy about it. Well, when trinitarians attempt to qualify everything about God with contradictory terminology invented for the purpose of confusing the opposition, it becomes a technical and lengthy debate.
I specifically address the attempt to force “plural unity” on the readers of the thread.
“Plural” is an adjective that means more than one.
“Unit” is a noun which names a single thing or person.
“unit” is ALSO used to reference “any of the parts or elements that together constitute the whole.”
“Unity” is the state of being one. It ALSO references the state or fact of being united.The doctrine of “plural unity” attempts to take one meaning and substitute it for another in describing how God describes himself.
Notice, I did not say the doctrine attampts to describe God. It attempts to describe how God describes himself.
In the Septuagint of Exod 3:14, God uses a phrase “I am the being,” comprised of words to describe himself, such as “I,” which in any language, is a first-person-singular pronoun.
“Am” is a first-person-singular present active verb. “The” is a singular definite article attatched to a singular verb, “being.”WEBSTER'S NEW UNIVERSAL UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY; 1996 defines a being as a person, and a person as a being.
The first attempt at confusing the issue comes when doctrinaires try to claim that a person is not a being. The argument is forwarded, that there are three “persons” in one
“being.” Of course, this ignores the fact that three “persons” are three “beings.” But they then attempt to cover this perfidy by claiming it is a “plural unity,” which is a contradiction of terms which used by themselves are legitimate terms.Is is much like claiming someone is wet but that is o.k. because it is only a dry wet; failing to express the difference between the terms as incompatible in that form.
Then, to further strengthen the argument, even more obfuscation is thrown into the mix, by requiring me to name one thing in the universe that is not a “plural unity.”
“I am the way, the truth and the life” addresses four things that are not “plural unities,” the use of the first-person-singular being the first of four; and “I am the being” is another.
The doctrinaires then attempt to make everyone who questions their new found truth appear ignorant or foolish as not “academically qualified” to question the work of doctors of theology.
The most important item in the argument offered is the fact that the Hebrew language uses plural nouns, which does not carry the same meaning as they would in English. Jerusalem for example, is a plural noun, but so is Joakim, a plural form name for one man. And there are many such names that are plural forms but applied to singular persons.
It is a false and dangerous doctrine.
Paladin said:
Quote the Septuagint of Exod 3:14, God uses a phrase “I am the being,” comprised of words to describe himself, such as “I,” which in any language, is a first-person-singular pronoun.
“Am” is a first-person-singular present active verb. “The” is a singular definite article attatched to a singular verb, “being.”Paladin,
We have been over this before. Jehovah said,
Quote Let US make man in OUR image and after OUR likeness.
The “I AM” said “OUR image.” This is the image of God exclusively and not of God and of angels. Man was created in God's image and the I AM said that it is “OUR” image. So much for your philosophy of language.btw, Jesus said,
Quote Before Abraham was I AM (John 8:58) This statement along with the “US” in reference to God's image renders your treatment of language invalid. This is a matter of two epistemologies. Yours is the Rationalist method and mine is the Presuppositionist method. The starting point for the presuppositionalist method is Scripture.
I have accepted your challenge to go one on one twice and you have failed to reply both times.
Quote (thethinker @ June 28 2009,11:57)
(thinker)
bd said:Quote I truly hope(God Willing) that Paladin stops lettin you and thinker throw him/her out of synch with the frivolity that is abundant in the both of your presentations. (thinker) Paladin throws himself out of sync. See how he handles Isaiah's vision of Christ's glory. It is altogether convoluded. Paladin tried to make you think that Isaiah 6 cannot be about Christ because chapter 53 speaks only of His humiliation. Paladin does not allow a passage to speak on its own.
Why do you say that? Just because I disagree with your assertion that John 12:41 is talking about Isaiah 6?
John 12:37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:
1st Isaiah reference:
38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?2nd Isaiah reference:
39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, 40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.Isaiah “saw his glory”
Isa 52:13 Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.”Isaiah :spake of him”
Isa 52:14 As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: 15 So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.
Isaiah 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? 2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. 8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”
John, just as the other apostles, and Jesus himself, quoted freely from the old testament, often skipping about and taking a quote here and another there. There does not have to be consecutive coherency when the old testament is quoted in the new testament.
Just because YOU want John to be referencing Isaiah 6 does not mean John was referencing Isaiah 6, beyond one sentence, or even beyon done word.
bd said:
Quote Thinker at least seems to be more authentic and original but you actually pretend scholarship and it is all false. (thinker)If you can't see that Paladin passes himself off as a scholar when he is not then you need glasses. Paladin is not a scholar. He is a DISSENTER!
Thinker, I could be your friend if you would learn to read my posts correctly. Please indicate in which Post I claim any kind of scholarship. What is the level of my scholastic degree? What school do I claim to have attended. How many Hebrew or Greek awards hae I published on the board?
In fact, tell me ANYTHING about myself I have said about myself, other than my success with a mathematics problem. And my assertion that I am tutored. Name another.
I always appreciate honest effort, but you and WJ seem bent on destroying me through character assassination rather than through rebutting my arguments.
I have offered to debate either of you on the issue of
“monotheism is taught in the bible.” WJ refused. I have not heard from you. Interested?You are becoming fixated on defeating me one way or another.
(thinker)
bd said:Quote I believe you want to be a scholar but you should instead want to be a sincere believer. (thinker) And Paladin is a sincere believer? Paladin denies that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
(P) reference please. I don't even recall discussing that theme with you. OF COURSE Jesus Christ came in flesh. When did we discuss it? When and where did I deny it?
It seems to me, while you are arguing over who is the greatest scholar, although I admit they are needed for translation; you seem to overlook one important factor, UNDERSTANDING. Do scholars give us understanding, do theologians? where did Paul say understanding comes from?
1Cr 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
1Cr 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1Cr 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.Understanding comes from God, not from any man.
How do you get understanding?
First, you have to BELIEVE the word of God, not the word of man, nor your own interpretation, then you ask God for his Holy Spirit.Luk 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
AS long as you rely on you own understanding, you only think you have understanding.
Georg
Quote (thethinker @ June 28 2009,12:18) Paladin said: Quote Do you or thinker care to enter into a one to one debate on the issue of whether monotheism is taught in scripture? A second thread can be utilized for comments from other interested parties. But NO ONE would be allowed to interfere on the debate.
Paladin,
I accepted your offer at the beginning and you never got back. But there will have to be rules. I would welcome one on one debate with you without the interruptions of others. I would gladly help to show people that your only purpose for being here is that you have absolutely nothing else to do with your life but overthrow the faith of Christ's people. I would gladly demonstrate that only trinitarians are consistent Monotheists.Quote These are spots in your love feasts…serving only themselves. They are clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots; raging waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever (Jude 12-13). thinker
Apology to the thinker. I missed this one.I will certainly consider any rules you proffer.
I proffer the following.
FIRST DISCUSSION:
Paladin opens with 1st premise, second premise, and conclusion.the thinker follows with 1st rebuttal, and must address the issues raised in the opening premises.
Paladin follows with reassessment of issues and/or rebuttal.
the thinker follows with further remarks dealing with opening premises.
Paladin offers closing remarks
SECOND DISCUSSION:
the thinker opens with first premise, second premise, conclusion.Paladin follows with first rebuttal, and must address the issues raised in the opening premises.
the thinker follows with reassessment of issues and/or rebuttal.
Paladin follows with further remarks dealing with opening premises.
the thinker offers closing remarks.
I would further suggest some kind of time limit, or word limit, or both.
What say you? Accept? Reverse order? time limit? words limit?
The debate will be civil, dealing with issues raised. No characterizations, no name calling, no insulting references. I believe we can do this.
Quote (seekingtruth @ June 28 2009,05:47) WJ,
A genius can be “ignorant”. I believe what Paladin was saying is:Quote Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. Quote Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. While knowledge is important, whether gained from higher learning, the school of hard knocks, or by special revelation, I believe it is not what we know, but how what we know has effected us.
My opinion Wm
How very insightful.I have learned one thing, similar to your offering.
If what I teach brings me closer to God; and
If what I understand makes me appreciate my brothers in Adam, more than I did, and
If what I practice brings me to a humility of the spirit, it stands a pretty good chance of being correct.However,
If what I teach does not being me closer to God, and
If what I understand does not make me appreciate my brothers in Adam, more than I did, and
If what I practice does not bring me to a humility of spirit, it stands a pretty good chance of being wrong.And
God,
who knows me best,
loves me anyway.thinker said to bodhitharta:
Quote And Paladin is a sincere believer? Paladin denies that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Paladin replies:
Quote …reference please. I don't even recall discussing that theme with you. OF COURSE Jesus Christ came in flesh. When did we discuss it? When and where did I deny it? thinker cites Paladin:
Quote There is no verse in scripture that says Jesus Christ “came in the flesh.” THAT is a conclusion reached by theologians who do not know how to properly exegete the Greek. (“Did John say… thread page 2 first post) There you have it. I know you will be able to wiggle out of this one too.
Paladin said:
Quote Why do you say that? Just because I disagree with your assertion that John 12:41 is talking about Isaiah 6? John said that Isaiah said “these things” when he saw His glory. It is in specific reference to the judicial blinding and hardening of the Jews spoken by Isaiah in 6:9-10. Isaiah said THESE THINGS when he saw Christ's glory. He saw His glory in verses 1-3.
And you are a dissenter. No one can make the statement you made below unless he is a dissenter.
Quote There is no verse in scripture that says Jesus Christ “came in the flesh.” THAT is a conclusion reached by theologians who do not know how to properly exegete the Greek. (“Did John say… thread page 2 first post) thinker
Quote (Paladin @ June 29 2009,02:38) Quote (thethinker @ June 28 2009,12:18) Paladin said: Quote Do you or thinker care to enter into a one to one debate on the issue of whether monotheism is taught in scripture? A second thread can be utilized for comments from other interested parties. But NO ONE would be allowed to interfere on the debate.
Paladin,
I accepted your offer at the beginning and you never got back. But there will have to be rules. I would welcome one on one debate with you without the interruptions of others. I would gladly help to show people that your only purpose for being here is that you have absolutely nothing else to do with your life but overthrow the faith of Christ's people. I would gladly demonstrate that only trinitarians are consistent Monotheists.Quote These are spots in your love feasts…serving only themselves. They are clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots; raging waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever (Jude 12-13). thinker
Apology to the thinker. I missed this one.I will certainly consider any rules you proffer.
I proffer the following.
FIRST DISCUSSION:
Paladin opens with 1st premise, second premise, and conclusion.the thinker follows with 1st rebuttal, and must address the issues raised in the opening premises.
Paladin follows with reassessment of issues and/or rebuttal.
the thinker follows with further remarks dealing with opening premises.
Paladin offers closing remarks
SECOND DISCUSSION:
the thinker opens with first premise, second premise, conclusion.Paladin follows with first rebuttal, and must address the issues raised in the opening premises.
the thinker follows with reassessment of issues and/or rebuttal.
Paladin follows with further remarks dealing with opening premises.
the thinker offers closing remarks.
I would further suggest some kind of time limit, or word limit, or both.
What say you? Accept? Reverse order? time limit? words limit?
The debate will be civil, dealing with issues raised. No characterizations, no name calling, no insulting references. I believe we can do this.
It's all good especially the part about word limit.thinker
Quote (thethinker @ June 29 2009,04:47)
thinker said to bodhitharta:Quote And Paladin is a sincere believer? Paladin denies that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Paladin replies:…reference please. I don't even recall discussing that theme with you. OF COURSE Jesus Christ came in flesh. When did we discuss it? When and where did I deny it?
thinker cites Paladin: There is no verse in scripture that says Jesus Christ “came in the flesh.” THAT is a conclusion reached by theologians who do not know how to properly exegete the Greek. (“Did John say… thread page 2 first post)
There you have it. I know you will be able to wiggle out of this one too.[/quote]
This was so immaterial I forgot I even posted it. And it was true, no scripture says Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
What scripture says is “Jesus Christ came in flesh.” There is no article in the Greek of that verse, or any of the other verses dealing with this issue.
1st John;
1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in flesh is of God: [Ieesoun Xriston en sarki eleeluthota ek tou theou estin1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
kai pan pneuma o mee omologei ton Ieesoun ek tou theou ouk estin kai touto estin to tou anticristou o akeekoate oti erxetai kai nun en tw kosmw estin eedee2nd John;
2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. [Ieesoun Xriston ercomenon en sarki]All of the references to Jesus coming in flesh have to do with
“Christ in you,” so that it is no longer you that live, but Christ liveth in you. If you do not accept this fact of Christ living in your flesh, you do not understand how it is Jesus Christ came in flesh.Paladin said:
Quote Why do you say that? Just because I disagree with your assertion that John 12:41 is talking about Isaiah 6? (thinker) John said that Isaiah said “these things” when he saw His glory. It is in specific reference to the judicial blinding and hardening of the Jews spoken by Isaiah in 6:9-10. Isaiah said THESE THINGS when he saw Christ's glory. He saw His glory in verses 1-3.
Until you can point out what part of Isaiah's 66 chapters John was reading at the time, you cannot limit John's understanding to Isaiah 6. John also speaks of Isaiah referencing Jesus' glory, which he did in 52:13. I say John referenced several parts of Isaiah's book. YOU say no, he only referenced Isaiah 6. Prove it.
(thinker)
Quote And you are a dissenter. No one can make the statement you made below unless he is a dissenter. (P)There is no verse in scripture that says Jesus Christ “came in the flesh.” THAT is a conclusion reached by theologians who do not know how to properly exegete the Greek. (“Did John say… thread page 2 first post)
Thank you for the reference. Already dealt with above.
What in the cat hair is a “dissenter?” Some kinda new trinitarian bad word?
Does that make You an assenter?
Paladin said:
Quote This was so immaterial I forgot I even posted it. And it was true, no scripture says Jesus Christ came in the flesh. What scripture says is “Jesus Christ came in flesh.” There is no article in the Greek of that verse, or any of the other verses dealing with this issue.
To All,
Just more Paladian double talk. Whether the article is present or not makes no difference. Note that he feels that his denial that Jesus Christ came in “the” flesh is “immaterial.” I can't believe he is actually going to debate me. His philosophy of language does not stand a chance.thinker
Paladin said:
Quote Until you can point out what part of Isaiah's 66 chapters John was reading at the time, you cannot limit John's understanding to Isaiah 6. John also speaks of Isaiah referencing Jesus' glory, which he did in 52:13. I say John referenced several parts of Isaiah's book. YOU say no, he only referenced Isaiah 6. Prove it. Paladin,
I have pointed it out already and you are not listening. In John 12:40 John cited Isaiah 6:9-10 about the Jews' being judicially blinded and hardened by God. John said that Isaiah said “these” things when he saw HIS (Christ's) glory. Isaiah's vision of Christ's glory is recorded in 6:1-3. Are you sure you want to debate me?Ask t8 to set it up so we can have a thread to ourselves. You may go first since you made the challenge. We will need to agree on word limit (not including quotes).
thinker
thethinker,June wrote:[/quote]
Paladin said:Quote the Septuagint of Exod 3:14, God uses a phrase “I am the being,” comprised of words to describe himself, such as “I,” which in any language, is a first-person-singular pronoun.
“Am” is a first-person-singular present active verb. “The” is a singular definite article attatched to a singular verb, “being.”(thinker)
Paladin, We have been over this before. Jehovah said,Quote Let US make man in OUR image and after OUR likeness.
The “I AM” said “OUR image.” This is the image of God exclusively and not of God and of angels. Man was created in God's image and the I AM said that it is “OUR” image. So much for your philosophy of language.(P) Thinker, we have been over this before. You ignored my response to offer more of your doctrine. Remember?
Wisdom testified in the eighth Proverb, that she was present with God prior to creation. Since Wisdom “came forth” as a birth, she certainly qualifies to be categorized with the Elohim, from which she sprang. God was speaking to wisdom, who being Elohim, by virtue of coming from Elohim alone, qualifies to be included in the “us” of Gen 1:26 and others.
Aknowledge it or refute it. Our debating ANYTHING hangs in the balance.
(thinker)
Quote btw, Jesus said, Quote Before Abraham was I AM (John 8:58) This statement along with the “US” in reference to God's image renders your treatment of language invalid.
(P)You wish.
Paul says that the natural man, Adam, predated the spiritual man, Jesus.
I Cor 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [Jesus] was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was NOT first which is spiritual [Jesus], but that which is natural [Adam]; and afterward that which is spiritual [Jesus].This leaves us with the proper exegesis of a seemingly contradictory statement in scripture; And the proper exegisis is not developed by deciding that one statement is true, and the other is allegorical, or poetical, or nonsense, or simply a contradiction to be ignored.
Proper exegesis begins with a question; Is there a way in which Jesus could appear on the scene of reality AFTER Adam
and BEFORE Abraham?The answer FROM SCRIPTURE deals with the issue precisely.
Try following the logic of inspiration.
Look at the tenses of the verbs in two subsequent verses in Genesis 17 –
4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou SHALT BE a father of many nations.
5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations HAVE I MADE thee.In this example, God says to Abraham “thou shalt” followed in the very next verse with “I HAVE MADE…”
The strength of God's intent is that it is as good as done because it is his word that is under consideration.
Paul describes this phenominon by quoting this very same example, and applying the simple truth developed by exegesis and inspiration; Rom 4:17 As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations, before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and CALLETH THOSE THINGS WHICH BE NOT, AS THOUGH THEY WERE.
I will admit to adding a comma to the passage in Romans, but it is my understanding of the proper exegesis of what we are talking about.
Jesus existed in prophecy, AFTER Adam, but BEFORE Abraham.
Thus Jesus could correctly say, “Before Abraham [ginomai] became, I was.” [ginomai (become) is an aorist middle deponent, requiring the completed form of become, which is became, and which requires “was” for eimi.]And before you fuss too loudly about eimi being translated
“was” you need to consider another verse, in which even the translators aknowledge that the theme under consideration calls for eimi to mean “was.”Luke 19:22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:
“Knewest” is [Pluperfect Active] requiring eimi, a [present active], to be translated here as “Was.” We are dealing here with the difference between the Greek presentation, and the English translation bringing out that meaning true to its intent. The pluperfect active requires that interpretation, because the action [knowing] was completed prior to the speaker's [present] speaking.
(thinker)
Quote This is a matter of two epistemologies. Yours is the Rationalist method and mine is the Presuppositionist method. The starting point for the presuppositionalist method is Scripture. (P) Actualy my epistomological method is the “Prayerful” method. I neither rationalize nor presuppose. I search the scriptures and try to understand with comprehension, what they say to me. I then verify my findings with other scriptures that may look like disagremenet, but when I find truth that brings out final understanding, but leaving no question unanswered, and no contradiction, and no
“mysterious” unexplained dangling issues, I adopt it until I find reason to move to something different.Trinity doctrinaires however, rely on words not found in scripture, doctrines manufactured by “scholars” to explain the meaning of words that were supplied by ignorant and unlearned men. They then build a doctrine based upon vocabulary foreign to scripture, (omoousian; theos 'o huios),
and when someone questions it, they invariably tell us “Oh, you can't understand it, you have a finite mind, how can you comprehend the infinite God?”God never accepted ignorant worship. AND God expects us to strive to learn, not wait to be fed. We CANNOT face the judgment with an appeal to such silly defense as “But sir, HE told me….”
(thinker)
Quote
I have accepted your challenge to go one on one twice and you have failed to reply both times.(P) This thread – page – 3; post #6
Quote (thethinker @ June 29 2009,19:50)
Paladin said:Quote Until you can point out what part of Isaiah's 66 chapters John was reading at the time, you cannot limit John's understanding to Isaiah 6. John also speaks of Isaiah referencing Jesus' glory, which he did in 52:13. I say John referenced several parts of Isaiah's book. YOU say no, he only referenced Isaiah 6. Prove it. Paladin,
I have pointed it out already and you are not listening. In John 12:40 John cited Isaiah 6:9-10 about the Jews' being judicially blinded and hardened by God. John said that Isaiah said “these” things when he saw HIS (Christ's) glory. Isaiah's vision of Christ's glory is recorded in 6:1-3. [/quote]Isaiah was a prophet. ALL of his book is prophecy. What makes you so sure that when he wrote chapter 6 he did not already have chapter 53 or even sixty lined up? He may well have articulated chapter six when he was thinking aobut chapter 52 or sixty.
On the other hand, what makes you think John did not have Isaiah 52-53 in mind by inspiration, when he penned his chapter twelve? You really do not know much about new testament quotes from the old do you? Sometimes, Jesus quoted from an old testament prophet, citing one by name, but including words or phrases from another, but not giving credit, like it is required today. (Well, at least required for ME, but not for you.)
As a matter of fact, Jesus offered one quote that borrows from Jeremiah, Zechariah, and Moses, but says “”Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet…”
Another time he quotes Isaiah as his source, but uses also part from Malachai.
(thinker) Are you sure you want to debate me? [/quote]
Not at all. I am willing to debate you or any trinitarian on the issue of whether monotheism is taught in scripture. My ego doesn't need stroked. I do not persue debate. I will settle for it primarily because it gives me one opponent at a time, in theory.
(thinker)
Quote Ask t8 to set it up so we can have a thread to ourselves. You may go first since you made the challenge. We will need to agree on word limit (not including quotes). How do I go about that?
Quote (Paladin @ June 29 2009,10:09) How do I go about that?
Hi PDClick here And you will see in the topic starter “t8” click on “t8” and there is an option to PM him.
He can set up the debate in the debate thread and lock the thread so that no one can post until the debate is over.
Give him the rules of the debate the time and date and he can make the announcement!
Blessings WJ
Paladin said:
Quote Wisdom testified in the eighth Proverb, that she was present with God prior to creation. Since Wisdom “came forth” as a birth, she certainly qualifies to be categorized with the Elohim, from which she sprang. God was speaking to wisdom, who being Elohim, by virtue of coming from Elohim alone, qualifies to be included in the “us” of Gen 1:26 and others. Aknowledge it or refute it.
Paladin,
I have answered this more than once. Where have you been? I deny that Proverbs 8 his germane to our discussion. Wisdom is personified as a housewife in chapters 8-9. I do not accept your treatment of Hebrew poetry.Paladin said:
Quote Our debating ANYTHING hangs in the balance. I am not surprised. Let the record show that I am not the one backing out. You know you won't stand against sound logic.
thinker
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 30 2009,03:06) Quote (Paladin @ June 29 2009,10:09) How do I go about that?
Hi PDClick here And you will see in the topic starter “t8” click on “t8” and there is an option to PM him.
He can set up the debate in the debate thread and lock the thread so that no one can post until the debate is over.
Give him the rules of the debate the time and date and he can make the announcement!
Blessings WJ
WJ,
Now Paladin is saying that our debating ANYTHING hangs in the balance. I think he is clucking. He said that the Bible no where says that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Then when called him on it he denied saying it. After I referred him to where he said it he qualified it by saying that he meant that the Bible no where says that Jesus Christ came in “the” flesh as if this makes a difference.I would start clucking too if this kind of nonsense was my best.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ June 30 2009,03:09)
(thinker)
Paladin said:Quote Wisdom testified in the eighth Proverb, that she was present with God prior to creation. Since Wisdom “came forth” as a birth, she certainly qualifies to be categorized with the Elohim, from which she sprang. God was speaking to wisdom, who being Elohim, by virtue of coming from Elohim alone, qualifies to be included in the “us” of Gen 1:26 and others. Aknowledge it or refute it.
(thinker) Paladin,
I have answered this more than once. Where have you been? I deny that Proverbs 8 his germane to our discussion. Wisdom is personified as a housewife in chapters 8-9. I do not accept your treatment of Hebrew poetry.(P) I am not “treating Hebrew poetry.” I am responding to inspired truth. When Wisdom declares that she was brought forth to be with Jehovah in creation, I have no right to discard her remarks as untrue based on “it's just Hebrew poetry.” Actually, it is not “Hebrew Poetry” at all, if it is Poetry, it is God's poem to men. And in this “poetry,” God expresses truth that we cannot afford to ignore.
(thinker) Paladin said:
Quote Our debating ANYTHING hangs in the balance. (thinker) I am not surprised. Let the record show that I am not the one backing out. You know you won't stand against sound logic.
(P) Who's backing out? You aknowledged my reference. I said “aknowledge or refute;” I said nothing about agreeing or capitulation.
You really must learn to read what I say, not what you wish I said.
Do you have any suggestion as to word length? Any more rules to consider?
I suggest we take a couple of days to research what would be good rules, and begin the debate next week. What say you?
Quote (thethinker @ June 29 2009,11:09) Paladin said: Quote Wisdom testified in the eighth Proverb, that she was present with God prior to creation. Since Wisdom “came forth” as a birth, she certainly qualifies to be categorized with the Elohim, from which she sprang. God was speaking to wisdom, who being Elohim, by virtue of coming from Elohim alone, qualifies to be included in the “us” of Gen 1:26 and others. Aknowledge it or refute it.
Paladin,
I have answered this more than once. Where have you been? I deny that Proverbs 8 his germane to our discussion. Wisdom is personified as a housewife in chapters 8-9. I do not accept your treatment of Hebrew poetry.Paladin said:
Quote Our debating ANYTHING hangs in the balance. I am not surprised. Let the record show that I am not the one backing out. You know you won't stand against sound logic.
thinker
Hi JackPD thinks that the us is Gods wisdom. So he believes that God is speaking to an inanimate object that has the nature of God!
Also somehow this wisdom “helped” God in the creation for the scripture says “Let us make man”. But the proverbs that he quotes shows that wisdom did nothing in the creation but was simply there.
God did the creating and his wisdom. was there in the creating process, so the “us” cannot be God refering to his own wisdom for wisdom did not do the creating!
WJ
Paladin………the Us in Genesis, is indeed the seven spirits of GOD, controlled by (ONE) LORD. They are the creative Powers of the LORD GOD. You have it right brother. IMO, and Wisdom is One of those Powers, and The LORD uses it in HIS creating works. Your rationalizations show the true sign of the Spirit Brother, Please don't get discouraged here, remember “He that endures until the end”. We must endeavor to snatch Thinker out of His indoctrinations and with GOD'S Help and our Prayers He will. IMO
As i said before you are a breath of fresh air Here Brother, peace and love to you and yours……………………gene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
